Why Charles should now stand aside: In a provocative salvo, eminent royal historian MICHAEL THORNTON says three heirs is one too many

A thunderous roar of welcome greeted the Queen and Prince Philip last month as they joined the audience in the Albert Hall to watch the 100th Anniversary Royal Variety Performance.

This was clear evidence, in case anyone doubted it, that as this crowded and exhausting Diamond Jubilee year draws to its close, our 86-year-old monarch and her 91-year-old husband have achieved the zenith of their popularity.

Harsh though it may be, it seems impossible to imagine the future King Charles III and Queen (or Princess Consort) Camilla ever receiving such an overwhelming demonstration of public affection.It is not so hard, however, to imagine the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, my near-neighbours on the small, windswept Isle of Anglesey, inspiring such an ovation.

Provocative: It seems impossible to imagine the future King Charles III and Queen (or Princess Consort) Camilla ever receiving such an overwhelming demonstration of public affection as the Queen and Prince Philip, writes Michael Thornton

This friendly, charming and unassuming young couple have won huge popularity and captured the hearts of the nation since their marriage.

And now that Kate is expecting a baby — or possibly even twins — the popularity of the future King William V and Queen Catherine looks certain to increase dramatically, possibly even to the almost idolatrous level enjoyed by William’s mother, Diana.

For all those who care about the survival of the British monarchy, this raises profound questions about the succession to the throne — particularly as it will mean next summer that there are three heirs to the throne, Charles, William and his new baby.

Share this article

My experience as a royal historian tells me this situation should lead to the succession to the throne skipping a generation. Charles, the next in line, is 64. Yet he is not a young 64.

There are times when he looks as if he could be in his 70s. As the years go by, his personal eccentricities seem to multiply.

If the Queen lives ten more years, which she shows every sign of doing, Charles will come to the throne as an elderly man. This would be the last thing the Monarchy needs if it is to maintain its relevance in a rapidly changing world.

Popular: Michael Thornton believes is not so hard to imagine the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, pictured, inspiring an outpouring of love from the public, similar to that shown to the Queen and Prince Philip

Of course, abdication is a taboo word in the House of Windsor since Edward VIII’s renunciation of the throne in 1936 to marry the American divorcee, Wallis Simpson. But standing aside from the line of succession before coming to the throne has a clear and persuasive precedent among Europe’s royal houses.

For example, the ageing Count of Barcelona, seeing it was in the interests of the newly restored Spanish monarchy, renounced his rights to the throne in 1977, in favour of his 39-year-old son, the present King of Spain, Juan Carlos I.

The Count was 64 at the time of this heroic act of self-sacrifice — the same age that Charles is now. But there, alas, the similarity ends.

For Charles is a man prone to self-pity and faltering self-esteem and has described his hugely privileged existence as Prince of Wales as ‘a comfortable form of inherited imprisonment’. He remains obsessively intent on claiming his birthright as our next King, regardless of the effect this may have on his country or the institution of monarchy.

His behaviour in recent years has bordered on the unconstitutional. His bombardment of government ministers with interfering and meddlesome letters — known in Whitehall as the notorious ‘black spider memos’ on account of his often indecipherable handwriting — has become a barely suppressed political scandal that threatens serious damage to the Monarchy.

For the past seven years, there has been an astonishing official cover-up of more than 27 ‘particularly frank’ letters written by Charles to the departments of Business, Health, Education, the Environment, Culture, Northern Ireland and Cabinet Office.

In a brazen attempt to prevent these letters being made public, the Freedom Of Information Act was amended in 2010 to give the heir to the throne exemption from all future requests.

This can be regarded only as a deeply disturbing Establishment plan to put Charles, who is himself a subject, above the law that applies to everyone else in this country besides the Queen.

After this was challenged, three High Court judges ruled in September that there was ‘an overwhelming public interest’ in releasing the letters, as the public had a right to know how the Prince of Wales seeks to change government policy behind the scenes.

Yet the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, in one of the most shameful uses of his legal powers, overturned the judges’ decision on the grounds that if Charles ‘forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is King’.

Much-loved: A thunderous roar of welcome greeted the Queen and Prince Philip last month as they joined the audience in the Albert Hall to watch the 100th Royal Variety Performance

That statement was an admission — albeit an unconcious one by a Cabinet Minister — that Charles is a wholly unsuitable person to become a constitutional monarch. It was also the strongest possible argument against government muzzling of a free Press.

Grieve’s ruling is now to be challenged in the High Court, further exposing the Monarchy to controversy and criticism, something which the Queen has sought to avoid throughout her long and successful reign.

Regrettably, this is not the first time British law has been amended to accommodate Charles’s wishes. In 2005, at the time of his controversial second marriage to the divorced Camilla Parker Bowles, constitutional experts contended it was unlawful, under two previous Acts of Parliament, for members of the Royal Family to marry in register offices in England and Wales.

On that occasion, the Labour Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, invoked the 1998 Human Rights Act to allow the Windsor register office ceremony to proceed, possibly unaware of the irony that Charles had written to his predecessor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, describing that very Act as ‘a fundamental distortion in social and legal thinking’.

Of course, no one would claim that Charles is without compassion.

On Monday, the day on which Kate’s joyous news was made public, I watched him tour the flood-stricken city of St Asaph in North Wales. He was kindly, attentive and sympathetic. His performance was slightly marred only by too much loud laughter at his own jokes, but even that could be charitably ascribed to a desire to raise the spirits of those whose homes had been ruined.

My alienation from Charles and Camilla
is not because of their treatment of Diana, although his chilling
‘whatever “love” means’ remark at the time of his engagement made it all
too easy later to believe he had married Diana with a glib lie on his
lips.

Proud: Prince Charles is pictured leaving St. Mary's Hospital in Paddington, London, following the birth of Prince William

It is not even his flawed judgment in continuing to associate with his ‘indispensable’ former valet Michael Fawcett, who was forced to resign after allegations of bullying and dishonesty.

What disturbs me most about Charles is the culture of cronyism surrounding his court and the suspicion that his staff work around the clock solely for the purpose of projecting him into the forefront of every situation, with the apparent aim of overshadowing the Queen.

William and Kate have no such agenda. They have no partisan courtiers. They appear to have no cronies. Unlike Charles, they avoid controversy and do not seek to promote themselves. On Anglesey, they have deeply impressed the local people by their care, kindness and genuine interest in their lives.

For example, Barry Wilson, the 50-year-old proprietor of the new Beachcomber Restaurant in Benllech, was astonished to receive a letter from St James’s Palace, conveying the Duchess of Cambridge’s warm good wishes for the success of his business. Her letter is now framed and is up on the wall of the restaurant.

If Charles really cares about the Monarchy, and about his people, he should put his own aspirations aside and unselfishly (for once) relinquish his right to the throne.

He once told a tearful Diana during one of their early marital disputes: ‘My duty to the country comes before my duty to you.’

Now he needs to remember those words. His duty to the country comes before his own egotistical ambitions.

If he were to step down from the succession in favour of his immensely popular son and daughter-in-law, and of the baby or babies that are now on the way, he would at last win the respect and gratitude of the entire nation.